Wednesday, August 18, 2010

"Time to control your boys before the shit hits the fan."

Well, it seems that miguelATgunfreezoneDOTnet has developed a bad attitude when it comes to Threepers.

Here is part one of his jeremiad.

Here is part two.

Some snippets:

It is no secret that I hold serious contempt for the 3% crowd. From what I have personally seen, most of them are one step removed from Internet Ninjas and those kids that dress all tactical to play with airsofts. No, I don’t know how the movement started or who did it and I couldn’t care less but one thing is certain: the founders of this thing will be facing a shit storm soon enough if they don’t have their kiddies tone down the rhetoric.

I know I am not the only one sick of the NO COMPROMISE hollering and then the sudden silence when one request proof their achievements. We are tired of the innuendos, accusations and falsehoods spread all over the interwebs just because or for whatever idiotic reasons they have to insult and belittle those who are actually are doing something but does not meet their stringent criteria of No Compromise, a criteria that besides impossible to realize, they designed from the comfort of their couches while typing warrior-like posts in their favorite forums. . .

I happen to be the target of a local ThreePer who believes I am the reincarnation of Uncle Joe Stalin. This particular Idjit and I have butted heads in a private forum I administer because I have dared to: 1) Challenge his bullshit and 2) Remove posts that are not in concordance with the forum mission statement (and that you must agree to belong) but he chooses to ignore and 3) Open hostility against any Law Enforcement personnel which is dumb when you realize that about one third of the membership is LEO from local, state and federal levels . Mr. Idjit is “preparing” for the “upcoming civil war” and I am guessing he is doing his sick version of Santa’s List and checking who is a patriot and who is not under his nutjobbery standards.

So far we have managed to avoid real life confrontations when we are at the range. Mostly I ignore the shit out of him, but the tension is palpable. If you look hard enough you might see a dribble of foam in the corner of his mouth whenever i pass by. I know that he has been issuing less than nice comments about me at the after matches reunions some shooters have at the local beers & wings establishment and some of the fellow shooters have informed me so. It was not the comments themselves (I’ve been called asshole once or twice before and sometimes with reason) but the level of hate and vitriol spewed has been such that people have felt the need to warn me. Initially I did not give too much care about that, but when I started to receive this messages, my view changed a tad:

you need to be removed. you are nothing more than a petty tyrant that uses his position to silence and obstruct opposition. when you go, take rob with you. understand that i will be sending a like message to him. love and kisses.

Another charming message went:

your days are numbered. do you not understand that the men i establish bonds with at (local eatery), (another local eatery) , and (another local eatery) far exceed your influence? i suspect that has a lot to do with it. you have no influence except for your petty tyranny. that and you being a socialist and all. you are a dry twig after the summer. winter will see you fall from the tree

And a third example:

again, your days are numbered. slowly but surely, day by day, deleted posts by deleted post, you dig your own grave. i have but one mission in life now, and that it to see you relieved. you are nothing more than a petty tyrant. *spit*

I am not worrying too much, but then again I am not turning my back when this asshole is around. We have already lost members because of this guy’s attitude and absurd verbal bellicosity. As one other threatened member has said “for all the talk about revolution, this is probably the kind of guy that will dig a deep hole and hide when the bullets start coming his way.”

So what is it to you? You are probably saying: “Dude this is your particular and very local problem. One crazy dude.” The problem is I am seeing more and more of the same blundering BS posted by other 3Pers in forums and blogs across our patch and in every state of the Union. The formula is usually I Hate LEOs-I Hate NRA-I Hate .Gov-I Hate You For Disagreeing with Me. They are visitors of certain No Compromise blogs and brand as traitor anyone who does not agree 1,000% with them. They see those who have a different view as rats against their version of the Cause for Freedom and I wouldn’t be surprised if some are having their own little Robespierre plans on how to deal with us. . .

So what are these Threepers after? They seem to make no bones about wanting a Civil War which leads me to believe that they have no fucking idea what a Civil War looks like. I am guessing in their minds all wars are clean affairs in which good guys win, all bad guys die and they get to schtump the blond with the prodigious frontal protuberances while sipping their favorite alcoholic beverage. Civil War must have the additional appeal of being a “neighborly” war where they can go home after 5 pm, soak in the jacuzzi with a beer firmly clutched in their hands while commenting on the points…er… body count they obtained during the day and the availability of fresh parking at the local mall after their raids.
Now, if you are reading this and you are the one trading insults and threats with this guy, do us all a favor and leave it alone. As willfully uninformed and wrong as he is about Three Percenters (and I can only assume it is willful for how much effort does it take to do a search and come up with Sipsey Street?), telling someone "your days are numbered" and "you need to be removed" (however you define that) is not worth it. Leave that to the experts like me. I know how to phrase the sentiment without become a police statistic.

The fellow who sent me these links did so with the comment, "This dwarf" (meaning Miguel) "better not meet Bob Wright." Well, yes. But then Bob doesn't make self-discrediting idle threats, either.

So, if it is to me that this Fudd is addressing the sentiment, "Time to control your boys before the shit hits the fan," this is my best attempt to do so. Please, whoever you are, quit threatening the moke (however mildly).

Mike
III

Once again, Firesign Theater is given an opportunity to sue the future for violation of copyright.


The diagram is here. The story is here.

This resembles greatly Firesign Theater's New Model Government in I Think We're All Bozos on This Bus, 1971.

What's next? Beat the Reaper?

"Spanking the Monkey": Bob Wright on Tom Baugh's speech.


I am appalled at the foolishness and self-serving delusion this speech represents and disappointed that any Three Percenter would not recognize it for exactly what it was.

First let us address the clearest indicator of this miscreant’s lack of integrity. If he believes that the rallies are of no value and they are just not his cup of tea then he should have stated that at the time of his invitation and politely declined. Rather, he chose to accept the invite to come and mock the attendees and their cause, thereby wasting their time and taking up speaking time that rightfully belonged to supporters of the rally. This in my mind makes him a thief, who through deception and with malice aforethought stole the time of the attendees and the invaluable opportunity the time and setting offered. He knew when he accepted the invite that he would betray those in attendance and would not give a speech about restoring the Constitution. His design was in effect stab in the back the misguided individual who invited him and mock all those in attendance.

In addition, in a dispassionate look at how his confused speech has caused such dissension, it is fair to contemplate who actually pays this man for in my estimation this speech is a provocateur's dream. Designed to deceive, discourage, divide and send the movement off on poisonous rabbit trails that will further spread discord among patriots at a time when unity is essential. This treacherous behavior should instantly sour any 3per on this snake, his book and anything he has to say in the future.

Looking through the body of the speech we find more indicators of either an agenda to divide or a stunning level of historical ignorance, tactical foolishness and strategic retardation. Was the author truly so ignorant of human history when he asserted that the first seven articles of the Constitution was not about liberty but about power? Is he unaware of the unprecedented level of control on GOVERNMENT that document represents? To any who defend this … individual, please tell me what he has accomplished in any realm that qualifies him to piss on my Constitution?

Any of you ever see this intellectual giant at a training mission??? Anyone ever see this “visionary” do anything that either furthered the cause or built a stronger movement? Has anything this “genius” said or done put one bean in your pot or one bullet in your bandoleer? Of course not. But his message seems to be that those who are engaged in this struggle are wasting their time. We are foolish “White Hats” and he is the wiser more cynical “Black Hats”? White Hats ??? Black Hats??? In fairness have you ever heard a more childish analogy . . . or is it?

The white Hat , black hat symbolism is deeply rooted in the American psyche and has profound meanings. I have to wonder, if that symbolism is tantamount to Darth Vader’s seductive entreaty to a White Hat wearing Luke Sky Walker to “Join the Dark Side.” Like George Lucas’ epitome of evil pragmatism our author offers an easier way to some as yet undefined goal. All we have to do is throw out our humanity, our love of country and that Constitution that in my humble opinion is the apex of human endeavor. As we continue please keep that invitation to the dark side in mind.

For the most part the rest of his “speech” is at best mindless mental masturbation. It probably made him feel good but accomplished nothing productive. Looking over this . . . mess, I ask you to look at the thoughts and motivations he attributes to those he calls white hats and simply ask your self does this apply to you? Does this apply to any other Three Percenter you know? Doesn’t, does it? It is useful to note that the “Black Hats” remain without form , substance , defined strategy, or corporeal form. Over the years we have seen and heard many like Darth . . . er, excuse me, Mr. Baugh, the further in the shadows they keep their mysterious legions the less they have to produce in order to justify their arrogance. They are the mischievous Scout master, who slips away from the campfire and at the opportune moment sends the young scouts into squealing spasms of giggling terror by standing in the dark and howling OOOOOOOO we are the black hats . . OOOOOOOO be afraid . . .OOOOOOOO. And given some of the dissention resulting from this I would say that Lord Vad.., oops, Mr. Baugh has certainly sent some of our campers screaming into the night, questioning their most deeply held beliefs, the motivations of their brethren, and the very foundation of our great republic. Shame on you.

We must use our minds and not our emotions. Emotional thinking is the realm of old women. This struggle must be populated with grown up men who are willing to set aside all their prejudices, personal grudges, personal satisfaction and personal aggrandizement in order to make decisions based on one criteria only. Each decision must be made on the tactical practicality of that decision as well as the strategic implications of that decision.

I have not read Mr. Baugh's book but judging by the quality of this speech I suspect he is far more proficient at “Spanking the Monkey” than "Starving the Monkey.”

Bob Wright
Eunice, NM
Bob Wright at the RTC Rally, Fort Hunt Park, Virginia, 19 April 2010.

Maiden voyage of new ATF surveillance balloon, the "Little Jimmy," buffeted by the winds of agenda, is the embodiment of recent agency bumbling.

You know, just when I get a little down, something comes along to remind me of why we must fight. "Remember who we are."

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Obamanoids back-door gun control efforts and South Korea.


Go to David Codrea's Examiner column here, read his analysis and go to the links provided.

Tom Baugh and Me: Clearing up some confusion about "White Hats" and "Black Hats." (I wear an olive drab boonie hat myself.)




Since the Guilford Court House rally there has been created in the minds of some folks the impression that has arisen that I agree with what Tom Baugh said (or would have said) simply because I gave him some of my sliver of time at the end of the rally and that I posted the link leading to his entire Black Hat/White Hat presentation.

This is false.

He has points, don't get me wrong. Pete at WRSA rightly calls Baugh "an important contrary voice."

For me, the operative word is "contrary."

My initial reaction back in late February to Baugh's writing was favorable. Although I hadn't read Starving the Monkeys in its entirety, in my rapid skim I found that there were things I agreed with and things that I certainly didn't. Indeed, at the urging of friends, I went ahead and recommended that folks read his book. In retrospect, I should have read the whole thing and written a review, something I still do not have time for.

But insofar as Baugh's talk on the subject of white hats and black hats, found here, it is both a false dichotomy and a siren song. Here's a snippet:
White hats hold rallies to convince others of the importance of their cause, hoping that if enough people could be educated, then the phantom majority would rise up and set things right. Black hats understand that the majority of people, addicted to their checks, want things just as they are. And black hats also understand that liberty, and a man's ethical claim to his rights, aren't dependent on, and shouldn't be dependent on, the whim of others, no matter to what numbers the tyrants may grow.

Which brings us to the upcoming election, and the hope for change. White hats believe that an election will change everything. Black hats accept the reality that it probably won't change anything, and that history shows that tyranny ratchets ever legally and legitimately forward at the whim of the populace, until chaos reigns.

White hats are afraid that their time is coming to a close. Black hats are confident that their time will come.
The image of black hat as worn by the only folks in the room who are hard-headed and far-seeing enough to recognize objective reality AND THEREFORE MOST ABLE TO FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT SIDE IN THE BATTLE OF LIBERTY VERSUS TYRANNY AND GOOD VERSUS EVIL is a seductive one.

It is also false. In my experience, black is the color favored by our collectivist enemies.

Here's a collectivist wearing a black hat.

Here's another.

Here's the ultimate in black hats.

Now as for me, I don't wear a white hat and I certainly don't wear a black hat. I wear an OD boonie hat and sometimes a woodland one. Why? Because I find them functional in both sun and rain, and are easily tucked into a back pocket when going indoors. It is a hat which attempts to avoid moral error without self-destructive naivete.

More to the point, I don't sneer at folks simply because they are not as far along the political continuum as I am. As I'm sure all of you know, political awareness is usually a process, not divine inspiration. Most of what radicalizes folks against the collectivist lie are the concrete examples that they are given in life. Some folks require a louder alarm clock than others, but that doesn't mean they won't ever wake up.

In between the time I began this essay and now, Malthus had some criticisms of Baugh that I believe are spot on.

Anyone who is familiar with Marx's "you are either on the side of the proletariat or the bourgeoisie" argument will have a head-start on the nature of Baugh's debating trick. He does not want a discussion concerning ends and means; he wants to poison the well.

I posted this at WRSA and offer it here also:

The black hat/white hat dichotomy ought to be the tip-off that author Baugh is confronting us with a false choice.

The question is not black or white but black (anarchism) or non-black (constitutionalism). There are countless permutations of constitutional government and most have a demonstrated superiority to Rousseau's noble savage in a state of nature.

Neither law nor ethics will support Baugh's world-view and thus he is obliged to gin up support for anarchism by employing a threadbare logical fallacy. This is disingenuous, nonproductive and a sure road to moral bankruptcy.

MALTHUS

And later he added:Delete

Point of clarification: I do not wish for anyone to conclude that Tom Baugh is morally suspect. I am not offering an ad hominem attack in response to his black-and-white logical fallacy.

Instead, the problem is his philosophical defense of anarchism. Those who continue to pour time and treasure into this epistemological sinkhole will find themselves increasingly indebted to nihilism.

Nihilism is handmaiden to irrationalism and brute force in politics. We have seen this scenario played out before in the history of Europe and know it always ends badly.

Black hats weigh heavily on their wearers.

MALTHUS

Some will think that Malthus is being unkind to Baugh. He is not. As evidence I offer an excerpt from my first run-in with Baugh's concept of who he sees as a black hat, and who a white hat.

It began with this email:

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom (Starve Monkey Press)
To: pete
Cc: georgemason1776@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Mar 4, 2010 6:42 pm
Subject: SPLC and ADL

Pete and Mike,

Thanks to Mike, I'm developing a direct channel into the SPLC right now.

Question: Are the ADL and SPLC in tune with each other or are they competing propoganda machines?

If they are buds, I think I can get the SPLC to alert the ADL for me which ultimately would probably provoke a more genuine response.

What do you guys think?

Tom
I answered him, in part:

They sneer at each other behind their backs but they also share info. I assume SPLC has asked you for an interview. Tape it and tell them you're taping it. Or, if you can't get a tape of them, make sure it is by email. Tape is better. Is Georgia a one-party state? I think it is. They will ask you about "associates" by name. Remember they're trying to blow up their conflation balloon. Don't give them anything unless you've checked in advance with whoever they're mentioning. But don't tell them any lies -- tell them you can't recall.
I also offered an idea that we might use the contact to flip SPLC's known propensity for lying back on them in an actionable case. Baugh demurred. His response, in part:

I'm more into an investigative journalism thing to discover for myself whether they (either/both) over-hype allegations of hate to draw in donations LOL. We'll see.

One of the things I haven't yet discussed with either of you is that I think there is a very real possibility of the forces-that-be trying to spark a race war to stir up conflict in order to consolidate unjust power. I've reached out to a lot of various people who should have a horse in the race, and so far the only ones who have welcomed my advances have been those who have borne the brunt of hate allegations. Such as you guys, and in a different dimension, James Edwards of The Political Cesspool. People who get the benefit of media doubt tend to wander off to find lesser prey, comfortable in their nests of bias.

I'm going to give them (SPLC and ADL both) the benefit of the doubt to start, and a clean slate with me. If they are what they say they are, they will be happy to join me (us?) in promoting a message of unity among all liberty-loving Americans of all races and creeds to ward off impending tyranny. If not, they will reveal themselves and their biases, which I will duly report to my readers as I have about my experiences with Glenn Beck's staff. There are others who, to protect their own pies, have refused to participate in this unifying message, whom I have yet to out as I haven't yet exhausted my benefit of doubt with them, or consolidated my position yet.

Regardless, I plan to reach out to those on their hate lists and give them the benefit of the doubt as well. This includes the Nation of Islam, which, as has been reported on WRS, has a history of encouraging its members to be on guard against tyranny. I can't tell you how proud I felt to be associating with Americans who would report this issue fairly. Thank you for that.

I can think of nothing more threatening to a tyrant than to have his minions take their hands off each others' throats (for those who are genuinely angry at each other), or refuse to be pitted against each other any more for his benefit. And then, in unison, demand that he step back from the precipice. It is our country, all of us, not that of tyrants or those who assist them. Nor the country of the electorate who would demand tyranny in its behalf.
"Reaching out" to racial collectives appalled me. This was my response, in part:
----- Original Message -----
From: georgemason1776@aol.com
To: tom@starvemonkeypress.com
Cc: bloviate@hotmail.com
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: SPLC and ADL

Tom,

It's not about fun. It's about attacking your enemy (and, I might add, the enemies of the Founders' Republic) on every level, at every opportunity, especially when you have an opportunity to get between his ears. I've been at this fifteen plus years and giving these professional liars "the benefit of the doubt" is from my experience merely naive. . .

Insofar as your fears of a race war, we all share them. See http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008/08/vanderboegh-birmingham-race-and-armed.html ; However, having anything to do with the race collectivists at NOI or Stormfront merely discredits you . . .

(Pete, for your benefit: "The Political Cesspool is a weekly radio show syndicated by Liberty News Radio Network, Accent Radio Network, and Stormfront Radio, a service of the white nationalist and supremacist website Stormfront.org" -- Wikipedia.) . . .

My enemy is collectivism in all its forms. I do not attempt to find common cause with my enemies -- and those of the Founders' Republic -- out of some misplaced good intention or mistaken belief that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." A man who practices that ends up with no friends at the mercy of his enemies.

Indeed, were you to seek common ground with such people, you would either be:

a: Unconsciously giving support to SPLC's lie that we are the same or

b. Consciously attempting to discredit my cause, that of the Founders' Republic.

I have been through this shit in the 90s, when people, mostly out of a false sense of weakness, sought allies in all the wrong places. It was shitheads like Edwards that killed 176 of our people at OKC, all in a failed sting arranged by the FBI through their principal provocateur Andreas Carl Strassmeier. . . There isn't a neoNazi, Identity or Klan group in this country that doesn't have its own FBI control agent monitoring a half dozen CIs. And this ain't a new story. Where do you think the 1963 Birmingham church bombers got their dynamite? From Gary Rowe, the FBI informant. The Fibbies were very careful to wait until Rowe died to re-try the bombers for that very good reason. From my point of view, THERE IS NO COMMON CAUSE WITH COLLECTIVISTS. Period. End of story.

Look, I haven't read your book. I'm struggling to finish my own and don't have time at the moment. I skimmed it a bit and took Pete's word for it. You wanted a mention to get SPLC interested in you, I did that. I endorsed it. I can un-endorse it in a New York minute.

I urge you to reconsider attempting to find common ground with collectivists. Unless you are a collectivist yourself, there is none. From their point of view, they look at conservatives, libertarians or Christians who make common cause with them as merely useful idiots and future victims once they have served their purpose. Ever read The Turner Diaries? If not, you should.

But understand this if you don't already. This is not fun. It is not a game. It is a dangerous, deadly struggle played for keeps that has been going on for a long time. Our side cannot afford mistakes. Nor can we afford being identified with our enemies. So, choose this day whom you will serve.

Mike Vanderboegh
Baugh answered as follows in toto:
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom (Starve Monkey Press)
To: georgemason1776@aol.com
Cc: bloviate@hotmail.com
Sent: Fri, Mar 5, 2010 10:48 am
Subject: Re: SPLC and ADL

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the impassioned email!

Let me quote you: "It's about attacking your enemy ... on every level..."

Let's now switch gears for a moment. We are on a path. Where we perceive we are on that path is reflected in our behavior. We can break the populace down into a few key groups and examine their beliefs.

1) Ostriches (some call these sheeple): Don't bother me, there is no problem.
2) Hopeful Activists: Things suck, but I think there is still a chance.
3) Skeptical Activists: I hope there is still a chance.
4) Careful Skeptics: There is no chance, so I'm treading carefully while I collect information.
5) Crypto: It's over the edge and I'm just waiting.

Where on this spectrum do you think I am? Where on this spectrum do you think my hard-core readers fall?

912 and Tea Party are in group 2. I think the 3Ps are in groups 3-5. I think that groups 3-4 will show up on 4-19, group 3 with guns, group 4 without. Group 5 isn't showing up for anyone, and not making a peep anywhere.

"Infiltrators": We have to assume that every movement is riddled with agent provacateurs who are trying to goad people into foolish action. Every movement. And of their victims the stupid ones are already in jail or dead or soon will be. Which leaves ...

Denounce or endorse, at your pleasure. I highly recommend that you take time to read it first, though. Doing either, or for the wrong reasons, without having read it might look foolish later.

You also might want to review your principles of 4GW.

And then ask yourself whether I am scaring the shit out of some people right now. And whether a lot of infiltration is getting teased out of hiding or otherwise rendering it impotent for getting good people killed or arrested just to serve a political agenda.

But even being denounced by you as a "collectivist dupe" can serve a purpose. I leave it up to your judgement.
So, with that last paragraph firmly in mind, I let the matter drop. Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I figured that sooner or later the issue would resurface. And it has.

And now you know where each of us stands, I think.

If it remains unclear for any of you, feel free to comment and I will try to clarify.

Mike
III

Monday, August 16, 2010

Just did a radio interview with Larry Pratt on the subject of my speech at Guilford Court House.

Gun Owners News Hour is carried by the Information Radio Network and is heard Saturdays at 12 Noon Eastern. Click on the link for the various radio and Internet connections.

Photos and video at Randy's & Bubba's websites of the Guilford Court House rally.

Excellent collection of images at Randy's Right.

And another at What Bubba Knows.

What Tom Baugh would have said.

Here.

Keeping an eye open: Our gift to the ATF in these times of turmoil.

The eye of a hurricane.
As announced previously, there is a big meeting of ATF brass coming up. What you, gentle readers, do not know is that this is the culmination of great turmoil at that troubled agency. There is a hurricane blowing through the Concrete Asshole of the Universe and whether it is a cleansing force or bodes future evil remains to be seen.

Thanks to our many sources within and without the agency, we have a pretty good understanding of what is happening as well as where the meeting is taking place.

This is what we planned to do: Greet the participants at the street with guerrilla theater -- characters dressed up as Waldo and Ramsey Bear -- handing out welcoming leaflets, singing songs and having a great time. At the same time, "We are everywhere" stickers would be placed in the public restrooms by Threeper saboteurs. Lawyers and camerafolk were lined up (for "Ramsey" and "Waldo" would certainly end up being bent over a cruiser trunk with their hands behind their backs). Preparations were well along on this when we learned some related details of things happening within (and nearby) the agency.

Thus, it has been decided for now that while the current hurricane is blowing, it might be better in the long term interest of liberty, justice and the American Republic, to observe the storm from the eye and wait and see if the rotten trees get uprooted by the force of it.

So the real Waldo and friends will continue to keep their eyes and ears open, but in the interests of the very real struggle now going on between the nominal reformers and the corrupt nemesis that is the Chief Counsel's Office, we will give the agency this little gift and not embarrass them at their big come-to-Jesus meeting.

Bob Wright, among others, can then put his $100 donation to the guerrilla theater into more concrete preparations rather than as a deposit on a bear costume.

So, have a nice meeting, gun cops.

We'll we watching with great interest.

Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters.

PS: We ARE everywhere.

Video of my speech.

A deep bow and doff of the boonie hat to NCCMWake:

Part One:



Part Two:



Part Three:



Part Four:

Signs, signs, everywhere -- signs.

"Praise Obama from whom all blessings flow. . ." I saw several of these signs on my way up to North Carolina. None of them had been vandalized, of course.

Folks,

I am in receipt of an interesting communication from Senator John Blutarsky, by way of COL Robert "Mad Bob" REDACTED of the legendary Dogtown Rangers. ("Bluto" and "Mad Bob" are old college buddies.) Both Senator Blutarsky and "Mad Bob" remind me of the ancient and honorable practice of expressing one's opinions of the powers-that-be by vandalizing road signs with forcibly projected lead particles of various sorts. I will have more on this after I have verified some details, probably tomorrow. For now, I thought you might enjoy this little game from the United Kingdom, which, despite what we hear about severe gun control there, has a problem with what they term "sign snipers."

Welcome to all you DOJ.gov visitors this morning who seem to be most interested in . . .

this recent post. Be sure and hang around, read my speech from the rally on Saturday, and contemplate which side of history you might be on.

I mean, it's our tax dollars at work, right? We don't mind.

Mike
III

Silence Dogood's Report on the Guilford Court House Rally

Here. Be sure and watch the videos of the opening ceremonies (especially the National Anthem) plus speeches by Bubba and Bill Randall. Great stuff.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

The Guilford Court House rally got little press attention.

This CBS affiliate station's reporter interviewed just me for over almost 20 minutes. He also interviewed other folks. We ended up with a grand total of 39 seconds.

I evade the cruel sentence of time constraints, and cause consternation among our assigned security contingent.

Thanks to EJR914, we have this video of the final moments of the official RTC rally, and my escape and evasion from the iron hand of Father Time. I will explain after the video.



The previous speakers having waxed rather more eloquent than had been expected (or in some cases merely waxed more than expected without the eloquence -- drone is not simply a male ant), as the end of the rally approached it was evident that we had far more speakers than time. Among these were Daniel Almond and Tom Baugh, both of whom did not deserve short shrift. Knowing that there was no way the Park Service would extend us, I let Daniel and Tom split my few minutes, asking only for a minute at the end.

A few things I knew for certain:

a. We would not get an extension.

b. I did not travel all the way to North Carolina to throw out 98% of my speech.

c. If we threw the Park Service a curve ball, it would take them at least 15 minutes to pass messages back and forth to the command post vehicle off property while they decided what to do. This was at least thirteen minutes more than I would have had. More, if I could stall them.

This is what I guessed:

They would probably not wish a confrontation over what was represented as an historical talk. If you've read my speech, you know that this made up the bulk of the presentation.

When we finally get the video of the speech posted, you will see that they ultimately decided to send our host/organizer up to the statue while I was speaking with a message telling me to end it. I demurred, and we went through to the finish without further interruption.

My point: free men and women act like free men and women.

Something that was pointed out to me later by an eyewitness: the presence of rifles, even empty, chamber-flagged, muzzle-down rifles slung out-of-the-way across the owners' backs, may have been an intimidation factor. If they were, so be it. It worked. As the Scottish warrior said just before the battle of Stirling in Braveheart, "Well, at least we dinna get dressed up fer nuthin'."

Mike
III

Rally report from Pete and kind words from David.

Report here.

David here.

Pretty good idea, but a single "We Are Everywhere" sticker posted in an ATF senior executive service restroom is better.

Forwarded from David Codrea.

Back home safe from Greensboro -- exhausted. Here's the talk I gave at the end of the RTC rally.


My name is Mike Vanderboegh. I'm from Alabama and I’m a Three Percenter. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, we take our name proudly from the three percent of the American Colonists who took the field against the forces of the King during our Revolution. They were supported actively by perhaps another ten percent of the population with perhaps another twenty percent who agreed with the revolutionaries’ goals but didn’t do a whole lot to make them happen. On the other side, there was another third who sided with the King and yet another third who were willing to blow with the wind and take what came.

But the Three Percent? Well, the Three Percent were fighters. It is appropriate that we are met here today on one of the most important battlefields of that war -- a battlefield where two of North Carolina’s signers of the Declaration of Independence are buried -- and a battlefield where the Three Percent fought and died and ultimately lost the battle but won the war.

The battle at Guilford Court House would not have been possible without four men -- two Americans and two British -- two of whom weren’t even here. Forgive me if I take a detour into history here, but if history hardly ever exactly repeats itself, it often stutters in similar patterns, and there are lessons in this story that are relevant today, and perhaps, in the near future.

First let me set the stage. Long frustrated by Washington’s refusal to be destroyed in a decisive battle in the north, British commander Sir Henry Clinton sailed south and after a brief siege captured Charleston South Carolna on May 12 1780. More than five thousand Three Percenters were captured and the revolutionary cause lost tons of precious supplies. Clinton then sailed back north to his mistress, leaving his number two, Lord Cornwallis, to complete the conquest of the Carolinas.

With him were two men whose actions would decisively shape the battle here at Guilford Court House -- Patrick Ferguson and Banastre Tarleton. On August 15, Cornwallis met revolutionary forces under the vain and incompetent General Horatio Gates at Camden South Carolina and whipped them with the help of a cavalry charge around the American flank and rear by Banastre Tarleton. Tarleton, the son of a Liverpool ship owner, merchant and slave trader, had squandered his inheritance and fled England in 1775 for America, seeking to make a name for himself and restore his fortune.

Tarleton’s nicknames among the Three Percent were “The Butcher” or “Bloody Ban.” He had earned the reputation after his Green Dragoons had slaughtered hundreds of surrendering Virginia Continentals at the Waxhaw Massacre in late May 1780. In his attempts to suppress guerrilla bands in South Carolina such as Francis Marion’s, Tarleton alienated the citizenry and made the guerrilla’s work easier by numerous acts of cruelty to the civilian population.

By his many cruelties and massacres Banastre Tarleton set the stage for the campaign -- he alienated even Loyalists and angered the Three Percenters and gave them a thirst for justifiable vengeance.

The second of Cornwallis’ officers to shape the Guilford Court House battle was Major Patrick Ferguson. As brilliant as Tarleton was cruel, the Scottish officer was an early advocate of light infantry tactics and the designer of the Ferguson rifle, a remarkable breech-loading flintlock. Ferguson was chosen by Cornwallis to recruit Loyalist militia in the Carolinas and Georgia and intimidate any colonists who favored American independence.

Initially, Ferguson had great success, but if he was brilliant, even though he had been the Colonies for three years, he still did not understand the American character. On September 10, 1780, Ferguson issued a challenge to Patriot leaders to lay down their arms or he would “lay waste to their country with fire and sword.” He later issued a second call for Loyalists to join him lest they be “pissed upon by a set of mongrels.”

Needless to say, this did not go over well with the Patriots. Even for the “Over the Mountain Men” who lived in what would later be east Tennessee and who had been reluctant to get involved in previous battles to the east such an insulting threat could not be ignored. Tarleton had proven to them what the British meant by laying “waste with fire and sword.” And calling such proud and independent men a pissing set of mongrels was an absolute guarantee of a fight. Go into any country bar in the South today and use similar words and see what happens.

By the afternoon of October 7, the Three Percenters caught Ferguson and his little army at Kings Mountain, surrounded them and destroyed Ferguson’s force, yelling “Give ’em Tarleton’s quarter” meaning, no quarter at all. Ferguson and 244 of his Loyalists were killed and the rest, more than 800 men, were all wounded or captured. The Patriots lost 29 killed and 58 wounded. The destruction of Ferguson’s command and the looming threat of Three Percenter militia in the mountains caused Cornwallis to fall back temporarily to South Carolina. Many Loyalists who had been thinking about joining the previously victorious British promptly changed their minds. Kings Mountain, by the numbers an insignificant battle in the larger war, was a pivotal moment, thanks to the brutal, ill-considered and arrogant actions of Banastre Tarleton and Patrick Ferguson.

Ferguson never left Kings Mountain, but Banastre Tarleton had yet to be taught his lesson. That would come at the battle of Cowpens and would be driven home by the third of our four key players who shaped the Guilford Court House battle, Daniel Morgan.

Dan Morgan was one of the most gifted tacticians and combat field commanders of the American Revolution. Born in New Jersey, Morgan left home at the age of 16 after a fistfight with his father, eventually settling in Virginia. A big man, poorly educated but practical and charismatic, he was a natural leader. Early in his life he worked clearing land, in a sawmill and as a teamster. During the French and Indian War, he was given four hundred and ninety nine lashes for punching an arrogant British officers -- a punishment that would have killed a lesser man. Dan Morgan paid the British back for every lash.

In June 1775, Virginia decided to send two companies of riflemen to add the Continental cause. Morgan was chosen to lead one of them and he mustered 96 men in ten days and assembled them on the green in Winchester on the 14th of July. Morgan then marched them 600 miles to Boston Massachusetts in only twenty one days, arriving on the 6th of August 1775. Captured at the ill-fated attack on Quebec on the eve of the new year, 1776, Morgan was finally exchanged in January 1777. Whatever the trade was, the British got the worst of the deal.

Promoted to colonel and placed in charge of the 11th Virginia Continentals, he trained his men in light infantry tactics. Later he was given command of the Provisional Rifle Corps, a light infantry unit of 500 picked riflemen.

At the battle of Freeman’s Farm, New York, during the Saratoga campaign, Morgan’s riflemen killed every officer in British General Simon Fraser’s advance party in the first exchange of fire, and forced a British retreat. Later the British came on again and Morgan’s men broke up formation after formation and charge after charge with accurate rifle fire from the woods on the far side of the field.

Shortly afterward, at the battle of Bemis Heights on October 7, 1777, Morgan was once again assigned to deal with Fraser’s forces. Fraser, the best field officer in British General Burgoyne’s command, was rallying his men when Morgan ordered him shot by rifleman Timothy Murphy. Murphy shot Fraser from a perch up in a swaying tree at a range of about 300 yards -- an incredible shot in that day. With Fraser mortally wounded, the British attack petered out.

This set the stage for the culmination of the Saratoga battle and the surrender of Burgoyne’s entire force. The British defeat at Saratoga brought the French into the war on the Patriot’s side. Tim Murphy, at Dan Morgan’s order, had fired the single most important rifle shot in the Revolutionary War.

Morgan soldiered on in the Continental cause, but was repeatedly passed over for promotion by the Continental Congress. Finally disgusted by the politics, in poor health, his legs and back in pain from the abuse he suffered during the Quebec fiasco, he was allowed to resign on June 30, 1779 and returned home to Winchester. After the disaster at Camden, when Horatio Gates left the battlefield ahead of his defeated army, Morgan decided to rejoin the army and see if he could help salvage the Patriot cause in the Carolinas.

When Gates was replaced by the new Department commander, Nathanael Greene, Morgan was ordered to take his light infantry force of about 700 men to the back country of South Carolina where he was to forage and harass the enemy while avoiding direct battle.

Cornwallis sensed an opportunity to defeat the rebel army in detail, so he dispatched Banastre Tarleton and his “British Legion” to track Morgan down and crush him.

Eager to avoid another Waxhaw or Camden, Morgan did something that was rare for a troop commander to do -- he sought the advice of men in his command who had fought Tarleton before, seeking from their experience and knowledge of the enemy the best way to defeat him.

Morgan found a way, and he spent the night before the battle circulating among his troops who were huddled around campfires trying to keep warm, explaining the plan and what was expected of them.

Making his stand at Cowpens, South Carolina on January 17th, 1781, Morgan’s plan took advantage of Tarleton’s tendency for quick action and his low opinion of American militia, as well as the long-range killing power of his own riflemen. Positioned in three separate lines of battle, with his marksmen to the front, his militia in the second line and his regulars to the rear, each was shielded by foliage and dips and folds in the ground. Morgan took care that each line was within supporting distance of the other.

The marksmen were to fire until seriously threatened, then retire off to the flanks or through the militia in the second line. The militia were issued similar instructions. The sight of the militia “fleeing” would encourage Tarleton to order a charge, which would then smack up against the regulars with the marksmen and militia pouring fire into the British flanks from the wooded areas to either side.

The British took the bait and the tactic resulted in a classic double envelopment. In less than an hour, the British force of 1,076 men suffered 110 killed and 830 captured with more than 200 of those wounded. Tarleton barely escape with his life. His reputation he left on the battlefield.

When Tarleton reached Cornwallis and reported the disaster, Cornwallis placed his sword tip on the ground and leaned on it more heavily with each bit of bad news until the blade snapped.

Coming in the wake of the American debacle at Camden, and added together with the victory against Ferguson’s Loyalists at Kings Mountain, Cowpens was a surprising victory against a force containing British regulars and under a commander who had never before lost an engagement. The spell of “Bloody Ban” Tarleton was broken and Cowpens marked a psychological turning point of the war, encouraging the revolutionaries and demoralizing the British and Tories.

Cowpens set in motion a series of events that led here, to Guilford Court House, and to General Nathanael Greene, our fourth man to shape the battlefield, and ultimately, the war.

Nathanael Greene was born the son of a Quaker farmer and iron forger at Potowomut, Rhode Island in 1742. Though his father’s sect discouraged “literary accomplishments,” Greene educated himself in mathematics and the law and likewise promoted public schools in his home district.

“Learning is not virtue,” Greene once said, “but the means to bring us to an acquaintance with it. Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. Let these be your motives to action through life, the relief of the distressed, the detection of frauds, the defeat of oppression, and the diffusion of happiness.”

In August 1774 Greene organized a Rhode Island militia company, which refused to elect him an officer because he walked with a limp. Greene went along anyway as a private. At this time he began to acquire many expensive volumes on military tactics and began to teach himself the art of war. Because of this, he was expelled from the Quakers.

On May 8, 1775 he was promoted from private to Brigadier General of the Rhode Island Army of Observation during the siege of Boston. Six weeks later, he was appointed a brigadier of the Continental Army. He must have been one hell of a private to deserve the jump to general. While at Boston, he observed the Battle of Bunker Hill and its aftermath but was not engaged.

In a letter Greene wrote to his wife Catharine about this time, he said “it had been happy for me if I could have lived a private life in peace and plenty, enjoying all the happiness that results from a well-tempered society founded on mutual esteem. But the injury done my country, and the chains of slavery forging for all posterity, calls me forth to defend our common rights, and repel the bold invaders of the sons of freedom.” Yes, indeed, Nathanael Greene was a Three Percenter.

Washington thought highly of Greene, and used him in a number of important posts. By 1780, the Continental Congress had made some pretty awful choices to lead the forces of revolution in the south. They had chosen Robert Howe and he had lost Savannah. They then chose Benjamin Lincoln and he had lost Charleston. Then came Gates and he got whipped at Camden, effectively ending the American Southern Army as a fighting force, leaving the way clear for Cornwallis.

So when Gates’ successor was to be chosen, the Congress decided to leave it up to George Washington and he selected Nathanael Greene. When Greene accepted the post, he wrote, “I am determined to defend my rights and maintain my freedom or sell my life in the attempt.” He also said, “I hope this is the dark part of the night which is generally just before day.”

Greene went south to pick up the pieces, splitting his forces in order to force Cornwallis to split his. Shortly afterward, and contrary to Greene’s orders not to engage, Morgan gave him the great victory at Cowpens. Morgan fell back toward Greene, bringing his 800 prisoners from Tarleton’s force. Greene fell back toward the Dan River as well, using a special light infantry force under Colonel Otho Williams to screen his retreat. It was a close run thing, but finally all of Greene’s army was across the Dan and ready to give battle to Cornwallis.

Recrossing the Dan, Greene moved up to meet Cornwallis here, at Guilford Court House on the 15th of March, 1781, on ground that Greene had chosen as favorable to battle he wanted to fight.

Dan Morgan, finally crippled by illness was not here. He had been sent home to convalesce. But his men were here, standing on this battlefield which the “Old Waggoner” had done so much to shape.

Like Morgan at Cowpens, Greene arranged his force in three battle lines. Unlike Morgan, Greene was not able to hold his militia to the plan, for they panicked and ran, in part because Greene had placed his lines too far apart, out of supporting distance. But the Continentals fought stoutly, as did the Dragoons under Light Horse Harry Lee. In the end, Cornwallis had a horse shot from under him and he ordered his guns turned upon his own men who were mixed up with the Americans and giving way.

Greene withdrew his army in more or less good order, intending to fight Cornwallis again on other ground of his choosing. After Bunker Hill, Greene had commented, “I wish we could sell them another hill at the same price we did Bunker Hill.” Here at Guilford Court House, he did. Greene may have left the field to the British and thus this was a tactical victory for Cornwallis, but it was a strategic defeat of the greatest magnitude. The battle had lasted just 90 minutes, but Cornwallis lost over a quarter of his men killed and wounded. A prominent war critic in British House of Commons exclaimed, “Another such victory would ruin the British Army!”

Cornwallis withdrew, and then decided to strike out for the Virginia coast, where he met George Washington and the French army and navy in the siege of Yorktown, from September 28th to October 19, 1781. And you all know how that turned out.

For his part, Greene turned south, maneuvering, failing to bring the British into another decisive battle, and losing a few small ones himself, but in the end the British were driven from the interior of the Carolinas and cooped up in Charleston where they sat out the rest of the war.

As Greene himself said, “We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again.”

He also said these lines: “We are soldiers who devote ourselves to arms not for the invasion of other countries, but for the defense of our own, not for the gratification of our private interests but for public security.”

And this: “Permit me then to recommend from the sincerity of my heart, ready at all times to bleed in my country’s cause, a Declaration of Independence, and call upon the world and the Great God who governs it to witness the necessity, propriety and rectitude thereof.”

I have taken the time to remind you all of the men who fought and bled and died here -- to remind you of the original Three Percenters. What can we learn from their stories? How can we take what they learned and put it to use today? Dan Morgan was uneducated, even coarse, a drinker and a gambler. Nathanael Greene was educated, studious, quiet and humble. Each was a genius -- Morgan the natural tactician and troop leader who saw the essential thing and battled toward it -- and Greene, the tactical failure but strategic thinker who as much as any other single man other Washington himself was responsible for the final victory. Neither had been a professional soldier, yet men followed both willingly because they knew that these leaders loved them, took care of them and would not spend their lives to no purpose. Each understood the weaknesses of their enemies and was able to exploit them. Neither man wanted war, yet when war came they plunged in, offering their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor on the altar of their country’s liberty.

Remember too Dan Morgan's tactical innovation of three lines, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, but placed within supporting distance of each other so as to make a formation greater than the sum of its parts.

And their enemies, Tarleton and Ferguson, let us not forget what their stories teach us. Unlike Morgan and Greene who were uncommon representatives of the common man, Tarleton and Ferguson were representatives of the elite of the British Empire. To use the terms of Codevilla's recent essay in the American Spectator, Tarleton and Ferguson were members of the ruling class and Morgan and Greene were members of the "country class." What is the essence of their stories, these men of the British ruling class? That arrogance and pride, cruelty and rash aggression, are their own rewards. That evil contains the seeds of its own destruction if we few -- we Three Percenters -- are courageous enough to oppose it. And finally that ruling classes were the same then as they are now.

So here we are, today, two hundred and thirty years later, on the same ground, consecrated with their blood and their sacrifice, fighting the latest battle in the eternal struggle -- between liberty and tyranny -- between good and evil. We are here, hoping as the original Three Percenters did, that fighting will not be necessary to secure our liberty and property to our posterity, but fearing that it will be.

The candidates here today and those spread all across this nation, the offspring of the Tea Party movement, they represent the next to last hope for rolling back this tide of collectivism and tyrannical appetite with which we are confronted. They are Morgan's second line of resistance.

They are the next to last line of defense. We, the modern Three Percenters, ARE the LAST line of defense. This is as the Founders intended it.

Yet if we are to succeed, we must understand our own and each others' place in the battle line, and we must not be divided with too much space between us so that we cannot successfully support each other and turn back the attack of the enemies of the Constitution.

Much is being made in the state-run media this election cycle about candidates like Sharon Angle who have talked about the potential failure of electoral politics perhaps leading to "Second Amendment remedies." This plain statement of fact is ridiculed as "crazy." Our mutual enemies attack this common sense statement of fact as "extreme" and "crazy." The Founders who fought and bled and died here -- those Three Percenters -- would not have thought so. They knew themselves better than their ruling class knew them. Americans have always been an eminently practical people, and if the old political forms no longer suffice to protect their liberty, their property and their lives, then they will make their own arrangements.

Indeed, our enemies make so much of this "Second Amendment remedy" precisely BECAUSE it is what they fear most. They do what they do in order to shape the battlefield to THEIR advantage. They know, or believe, that they can manipulate the political system. But they also KNOW that they cannot manipulate US, the Three Percent. This is why Bill Clinton denounced us by name back in April.

WE ARE WHAT THEY FEAR.

YOU are what they fear.

They do not fear the stupid party, the GOP, they know that they can handle them. But they fear that they cannot handle us. And they are right to fear.

Today’s Three Percent are the folks the Founders counted on to save the Republic when everyone else abandoned it.

And we will.

There will be no more free Wacos and no more free Katrinas.

THERE WILL BE NO FREE STOLEN ELECTIONS EITHER.

For we are the Three Percent.

We stand today on our forefather’s battleground, with their same resolve.

We will not agree to our own enslavement, no matter how soft and meeching the pleas and no matter what well-intentioned premises it is offered to us.

We will not disarm.

They cannot convince us.

They cannot intimidate us.

They can try to kill us, if they think they can.

But they should remember, we’ll shoot back .

We are not going away.

We are not backing up another inch.

And there are THREE MILLION OF US.

THREE MILLION.

And increasingly this is a fact that the enemies of the Founders’ Republic are coming to understand. For from Guilford Court House today to Afghanistan and Iraq, even to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, is written the promise, the threat, the credo -- WE ARE EVERYWHERE.

And they know this.

They know this.

And yet, and yet, this is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for many years and I cannot recall reading of such a thing. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can't be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won't be done. The Founders' Republic, the one that they fought and died for here, on this very ground, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost. LOST.

But I tell you this: If that is so, we will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to take note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.

And when we are gone, the scattered, free survivors hiding in the ruins of our once-great republic will sing of our deeds in forbidden songs, tending the flickering flame of individual liberty until it bursts forth again, as it must, generations later. We will live forever, like the Spartans at Thermopylae, in sacred memory.

But just now, today, looking out across this battlefield park, reading and hearing of the mighty upsurge of the voices of like minds all over the 50 states, I believe we are going to win. And I’ll tell you why.

Our enemies of today's self-styled ruling class are full well as arrogant, prideful, cruel and voracious for other peoples’ lives, liberty and property as “The Butcher” Banastre Tarleton and the powdered wigs who sent him. But there is one thing that such people are most afraid of losing and that is their lives. They have no real principles, these collectivists, only appetites. They have no principles that they are willing to die for and are frightened to death by people who are and who do.

In the final analysis, the only solution for a tyrant's appetite is to punch his sharp teeth down his lying throat.

And that is the task of the Three Percent, regardless of what time and place they were born into.
So when the enemies of the Constitution and the Founders' Republic ask Tea Party candidates such as those here today about how "extreme" and "crazy" they believe Second Amendment remedies are, I hope they will say: "It does not matter if YOU think that they are extreme and crazy people. The fact of the matter is that they exist, and they do not believe that they are extreme or crazy. They do not seek to tell you what do, but they insist that you cease telling THEM what to do. My suggestion is to leave them the heck alone, lest your appetites get you in deep, deep trouble, for if you are able to corrupt the electoral process and collapse our ability to resist you politically, you WILL have to deal with them."

And I swear to you all today, upon the lives and futures of my children, they WILL have to deal with the Three Percent. And they will not like the cards they are dealt.

NOT ONE MORE INCH BACK.

We are the Founders' third line of resistance -- within supporting distance of the second line of politics -- and we will not fail.

WE WILL NOT FAIL.

Thank you.